Dear Wikimedia Foundation people,
The page http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ariel_Sharon in commons includes racist cartoons against a representative of the Jewish nation, and thus, against the Jewish people themselves. I seems like Commons does not have a NPOV policy and thus the pictures will be there until they manage to create one. I do not agree that such pictures be presented in Ariel Sharon's page and I think you should interfere (as commons community clearly don't have the policies to deal with this case) and correct this serious offence before it is released to the press in Israel.
Thanks, Yoni Weiden aka Yonidebest@hewiki
2007/12/5, Yoni Weiden yonidebest@gmail.com:
...before it is released to the press in Israel.
Is it a legal threat?
On 05/12/2007, Gatto Nero gattonero@gmail.com wrote:
2007/12/5, Yoni Weiden yonidebest@gmail.com:
...before it is released to the press in Israel.
Is it a legal threat?
o_0 Hardly.
Are the illustrations used anywhere? Is there any reason not to put them up for deletion in the usual manner?
- d.
2007/12/5, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
On 05/12/2007, Gatto Nero gattonero@gmail.com wrote:
2007/12/5, Yoni Weiden yonidebest@gmail.com:
...before it is released to the press in Israel.
Is it a legal threat?
o_0 Hardly.
Maybe saying "We'll call the press" is not a classical "legal threat", but it's not that fair, especially cause it doesn't put the basis for a discussion.
Are the illustrations used anywhere? Is there any reason not to put them up for deletion in the usual manner?
Personally: why delete the image? Do we delete images of sexual organs, 'cause "offensive"? It doesn't seem so.
Personally: why delete the image? Do we delete images of sexual organs, 'cause "offensive"? It doesn't seem so.
Don't you think that there is a slight difference between body parts and personal attacks to a politician? Or do you see any violation of NPOV in pictures of genitalia? At least I don't...
I think the only possible place to use these images is in articles about these kind of images or about the painter or the publisher of such things.
--Thogo.
On Dec 5, 2007 11:07 PM, Gatto Nero gattonero@gmail.com wrote:
2007/12/5, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
On 05/12/2007, Gatto Nero gattonero@gmail.com wrote:
Is it a legal threat?
o_0 Hardly.
Maybe saying "We'll call the press" is not a classical "legal threat",
...
A legal threat has to involve, you know, the law.
2007/12/5, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com:
On Dec 5, 2007 11:07 PM, Gatto Nero gattonero@gmail.com wrote:
2007/12/5, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
On 05/12/2007, Gatto Nero gattonero@gmail.com wrote:
Is it a legal threat?
o_0 Hardly.
Maybe saying "We'll call the press" is not a classical "legal threat",
...
A legal threat has to involve, you know, the law.
Yes, I used a wrong phrase. That was not a legal threat, that was just a threat. "Delete, or _someone_ will inform the press"... Not nice.
Gatto Nero a écrit :
2007/12/5, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
On 05/12/2007, Gatto Nero gattonero@gmail.com wrote:
2007/12/5, Yoni Weiden yonidebest@gmail.com:
...before it is released to the press in Israel.
Is it a legal threat?
o_0 Hardly.
Maybe saying "We'll call the press" is not a classical "legal threat", but it's not that fair, especially cause it doesn't put the basis for a discussion.
Are the illustrations used anywhere? Is there any reason not to put them up for deletion in the usual manner?
Personally: why delete the image? Do we delete images of sexual organs, 'cause "offensive"? It doesn't seem so.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Images of sexual organs are educationnal images. They show something which is scientifical.
Whereas I fail to find what's educationnal in these pictures. Imho, these images show nothing but their uploader's will to make propaganda on Wikimedia Commons.
Yrs,
Benjamin Smith, User:Benjism89
On 05/12/2007, Benji benji.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Gatto Nero a écrit :
2007/12/5, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
On 05/12/2007, Gatto Nero gattonero@gmail.com wrote:
2007/12/5, Yoni Weiden yonidebest@gmail.com:
...before it is released to the press in Israel.
Is it a legal threat?
o_0 Hardly.
Maybe saying "We'll call the press" is not a classical "legal threat", but it's not that fair, especially cause it doesn't put the basis for a discussion.
Are the illustrations used anywhere? Is there any reason not to put them up for deletion in the usual manner?
Personally: why delete the image? Do we delete images of sexual organs, 'cause "offensive"? It doesn't seem so.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Images of sexual organs are educationnal images. They show something which is scientifical.
Whereas I fail to find what's educationnal in these pictures. Imho, these images show nothing but their uploader's will to make propaganda on Wikimedia Commons.
Exemplar images of anything is educational: the many aspects of sex, violence, racism, propaganda, racism, hate, &c.
On Dec 5, 2007 11:56 AM, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
Exemplar images of anything is educational: the many aspects of sex, violence, racism, propaganda, racism, hate, &c.
...and we host exemplars of everything (short of child porn, I hope).
That we properly host exemplars in a category does not mean that we should host further examples which are not being used in educational articles on any of the projects.
Wikipedia is not a web hosting facility for controversial content for the purposes of hosting anything and everything. If it's not related to the projects (encyclopedias, etc) then it doesn't belong here. We may not notice or care unless it's offensive, though.
On Dec 5, 2007 9:03 PM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 5, 2007 11:56 AM, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
Exemplar images of anything is educational: the many aspects of sex, violence, racism, propaganda, racism, hate, &c.
...and we host exemplars of everything (short of child porn, I hope).
That we properly host exemplars in a category does not mean that we should host further examples which are not being used in educational articles on any of the projects.
This implies that the Commons community prescribes what images other projects should use. I think this is wrong: we should give projects themselves the opportunity to choose whatever image they prefer.
[snip]
Bryan
On Dec 5, 2007 12:12 PM, Bryan Tong Minh bryan.tongminh@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 5, 2007 9:03 PM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 5, 2007 11:56 AM, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
Exemplar images of anything is educational: the many aspects of sex, violence, racism, propaganda, racism, hate, &c.
...and we host exemplars of everything (short of child porn, I hope).
That we properly host exemplars in a category does not mean that we
should
host further examples which are not being used in educational articles
on
any of the projects.
This implies that the Commons community prescribes what images other projects should use. I think this is wrong: we should give projects themselves the opportunity to choose whatever image they prefer.
I don't think that implies that at all.
1. Another project can always locally host an image, if Commons won't have it. 2. An image on Commons *not* used on any project is... wrong. Regardless of whether it's controversial or not.
I don't mind there being free image repositories. It would not be a bad thing if the WMF formed one as a new project. Commons, as it stands now, is specifically more focused on supporting the other projects.
If the particular images this is all about had been used as exemplars of racist images somewhere on an article or in a wikibook or whatever, I'd recommend having kept them regardless of how offensive they are. But they weren't.
On Dec 5, 2007 9:32 PM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 5, 2007 12:12 PM, Bryan Tong Minh bryan.tongminh@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 5, 2007 9:03 PM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 5, 2007 11:56 AM, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
Exemplar images of anything is educational: the many aspects of sex, violence, racism, propaganda, racism, hate, &c.
...and we host exemplars of everything (short of child porn, I hope).
That we properly host exemplars in a category does not mean that we
should
host further examples which are not being used in educational articles
on
any of the projects.
This implies that the Commons community prescribes what images other projects should use. I think this is wrong: we should give projects themselves the opportunity to choose whatever image they prefer.
I don't think that implies that at all.
- Another project can always locally host an image, if Commons won't have
it.
That kinda defeats the purpose of Commons.
- An image on Commons *not* used on any project is... wrong. Regardless of
whether it's controversial or not.
I don't mind there being free image repositories. It would not be a bad thing if the WMF formed one as a new project. Commons, as it stands now, is specifically more focused on supporting the other projects.
I disagree. I believe that images on Commons should be _potentially_ useful for other projects. What is not used now may be used in the future.
If the particular images this is all about had been used as exemplars of racist images somewhere on an article or in a wikibook or whatever, I'd recommend having kept them regardless of how offensive they are. But they weren't.
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Bryan
On Dec 5, 2007 12:32 PM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think that implies that at all.
- Another project can always locally host an image, if Commons won't have
it. 2. An image on Commons *not* used on any project is... wrong. Regardless of whether it's controversial or not.
I don't mind there being free image repositories. It would not be a bad thing if the WMF formed one as a new project. Commons, as it stands now, is specifically more focused on supporting the other projects.
<snip>
Maybe this is a dumb question, but why isn't Commons simply trying to be a generic free image repository? Simply organizing and validating free content is a valuable service to the larger world community regardless of whether images are of interest to Wikimedia projects. I can't imagine the point of forming a new free image project, when we already have Commons. As it is, we often promote Commons as if it were a generic free image repository anyway.
-Robert Rohde
Hoi, What we do not want to be in Commons is another site with family / party pictures. Also the number of dogs and cats pictures does not need to be as big as Flickr. When this is expressed as the material has to be useful to our projects then we have a boundary that can be understood. When we are talking about offensive material, there are all kinds of material that can be offensive to some that are perfectly fine to others.
The flash has gone into the pan on this one. It will be good to get to some consensus in a few weeks time.
Thanks, GerardM
On Dec 5, 2007 10:13 PM, Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 5, 2007 12:32 PM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think that implies that at all.
- Another project can always locally host an image, if Commons won't
have
it. 2. An image on Commons *not* used on any project is... wrong.
Regardless
of whether it's controversial or not.
I don't mind there being free image repositories. It would not be a bad thing if the WMF formed one as a new project. Commons, as it stands
now,
is specifically more focused on supporting the other projects.
<snip>
Maybe this is a dumb question, but why isn't Commons simply trying to be a generic free image repository? Simply organizing and validating free content is a valuable service to the larger world community regardless of whether images are of interest to Wikimedia projects. I can't imagine the point of forming a new free image project, when we already have Commons. As it is, we often promote Commons as if it were a generic free image repository anyway.
-Robert Rohde _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
George Herbert wrote:
- An image on Commons *not* used on any project is... wrong. Regardless of
whether it's controversial or not.
I don't mind there being free image repositories. It would not be a bad thing if the WMF formed one as a new project. Commons, as it stands now, is specifically more focused on supporting the other projects.
This hasn't been true for over a year now---Commons is its own, separate project dedicated to hosting a repository of free images useful for some informational, historical, educational, etc. purpose. It's not expected that every single image on Commons will be used in a Wikipedia article somewhere... in particular a *very* common use of Commons is for the Wikipedia article to include one or two images of a subject, and a link to Commons for the rest of them. We have *dozens* of pictures of the Parthenon, for example, much more than any article on the Parthenon could possibly shove in... so many are unused except in the Commons gallery, which is just fine IMO.
-Mark
I do not consider myself a commons member (and I doubt if they do). With my previous encounters with the deletion process I found it insufficient. Also, I do not wish to promote a community discussion about these images. I know that the foundation can call Veto on this, and this is why I am requesting this. If the Israeli press gets hold of this, it can seriously damage Wikimedia's reputation and our Hebrew Wikipedia. People get easily offended in such cases. I am asking the Foundation to prevent being on the major news channels in this bad light. I do not need to remind you what happened in Denmark and the Muslim cartoons - It was a world wide fiasco. Yoni Weiden
2007/12/5, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
On 05/12/2007, Gatto Nero gattonero@gmail.com wrote:
2007/12/5, Yoni Weiden yonidebest@gmail.com:
...before it is released to the press in Israel.
Is it a legal threat?
o_0 Hardly.
Are the illustrations used anywhere? Is there any reason not to put them up for deletion in the usual manner?
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 05/12/2007, Yoni Weiden yonidebest@gmail.com wrote:
I do not consider myself a commons member (and I doubt if they do).
Every Foundation wiki user arguably has an interest, since it is a service wiki.
With my previous encounters with the deletion process I found it insufficient. Also, I do not wish to promote a community discussion about these images. I know that the foundation can call Veto on this, and this is why I am requesting this. If the Israeli press gets hold of this, it can seriously damage Wikimedia's reputation and our Hebrew Wikipedia. People get easily offended in such cases. I am asking the Foundation to prevent being on the major news channels in this bad light. I do not need to remind you what happened in Denmark and the Muslim cartoons - It was a world wide fiasco.
The Foundation has an obvious wish not to appear to exercise editorial control, but obviously there's speedy deletion criteria for Commons as well. And it looks like Anthere exercised those ...
With this sort of thing ("deletion reason: what is this sh*t, kill it"), the wiki communities will pretty much always be a reasonable first place to approach.
- d.
2007/12/5, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
On 05/12/2007, Yoni Weiden yonidebest@gmail.com wrote:
I do not consider myself a commons member (and I doubt if they do).
Ha! What a joke! When I asked some Wikipedian to come and vote on something, the commons community thought this was rude of me. Service or not - we don't have a voice there. But that a diff story. Yoni Weiden
2007/12/5, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
On 05/12/2007, Yoni Weiden yonidebest@gmail.com wrote:
I do not consider myself a commons member (and I doubt if they do).
Every Foundation wiki user arguably has an interest, since it is a service wiki.
With my previous encounters with the deletion process I found it insufficient.
Also,
I do not wish to promote a community discussion about these images. I
know
that the foundation can call Veto on this, and this is why I am
requesting
this. If the Israeli press gets hold of this, it can seriously damage Wikimedia's reputation and our Hebrew Wikipedia. People get easily
offended
in such cases. I am asking the Foundation to prevent being on the major
news
channels in this bad light. I do not need to remind you what happened in Denmark and the Muslim cartoons - It was a world wide fiasco.
The Foundation has an obvious wish not to appear to exercise editorial control, but obviously there's speedy deletion criteria for Commons as well. And it looks like Anthere exercised those ...
With this sort of thing ("deletion reason: what is this sh*t, kill it"), the wiki communities will pretty much always be a reasonable first place to approach.
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2007/12/5, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
The Foundation has an obvious wish not to appear to exercise editorial control, but obviously there's speedy deletion criteria for Commons as well. And it looks like Anthere exercised those ...
So nice. Then everyone claiming offense for an image will be made happy with a deletion, or just Jewishes? Just to know it: personally it seems to me like "reverse racism"...
With this sort of thing ("deletion reason: what is this sh*t, kill it"), the wiki communities will pretty much always be a reasonable first place to approach.
Yep. Especially cause there could be people for which an image is not "shit" but just "expression"...
I do not consider myself a commons member (and I doubt if they do). With my previous encounters with the deletion process I found it insufficient. Also, I do not wish to promote a community discussion about these images. I know that the foundation can call Veto on this, and this is why I am requesting this. If the Israeli press gets hold of this, it can seriously damage Wikimedia's reputation and our Hebrew Wikipedia. People get easily offended in such cases. I am asking the Foundation to prevent being on the major news channels in this bad light. I do not need to remind you what happened in Denmark and the Muslim cartoons - It was a world wide fiasco. Yoni Weiden
There will be some extremely negative information, and information about opinion, regarding Israel and its public figures on Wikipedia. I think Israelis with common sense expect that.
Those cartoons pose interesting questions about original research, however. Unless they were published in major newspapers, what status do they have? They are just a cartoonist's opinion.
Fred
Yoni Weiden wrote:
Dear Wikimedia Foundation people,
The page http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ariel_Sharon in commons includes racist cartoons against a representative of the Jewish nation, and thus, against the Jewish people themselves. I seems like Commons does not have a NPOV policy and thus the pictures will be there until they manage to create one. I do not agree that such pictures be presented in Ariel Sharon's page and I think you should interfere (as commons community clearly don't have the policies to deal with this case) and correct this serious offence before it is released to the press in Israel.
Thanks, Yoni Weiden aka Yonidebest@hewiki _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Euh
Some (many) of the images uploaded by Jaakobou are quite shocking. I am sorry, but I fail to see how many of these images are in any sense *educational*
Example http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:UnitedweRAPE.gif http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Arielsharonsecretlove.gif http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:SharonAnti-Christ.gif
ant
On 12/5/07, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Some (many) of the images uploaded by Jaakobou are quite shocking. I am sorry, but I fail to see how many of these images are in any sense *educational*
As far as I can tell, the illustrations were not created specifically for Commons. Rather, an illustrator named Carlos Latuff made them available as public domain artwork. As such, they could usefully serve as examples of particular types of political cartoonism, where we normally would resort to fair use. See:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Latuff
for examples of Latuff's work. I've proposed an NPOV disclaimer (before Anthere removed the cartoons).
Personally, I don't *like* the idea that there are so many genitalia images in Commons, but I can live with it. But we must draw the line somewhere. I am sure the press will. BTW, this is not a threat. I do not intend to go to the press as I am for Wikimedia. I was even one of the founders of Wikimedia IL. I wish this wouldn't but I have no doubt the press will find out about this: we are having discussion about this in the Hebrew Wikipedia and if there will be a mass deletion process where the pages will be kept - I am sure they can be "traced".
Regarding an example of Latuff's - thats one thing. The Hebrew Wikipedia as one example of his cartoons - This doesn't mean that we should allow uploading of all of his racist cartoons, and presenting them in Ariel Sharon's page. Some respect is in order.
Yoni Weiden
2007/12/5, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org:
On 12/5/07, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Some (many) of the images uploaded by Jaakobou are quite shocking. I am sorry, but I fail to see how many of these images are in any sense *educational*
As far as I can tell, the illustrations were not created specifically for Commons. Rather, an illustrator named Carlos Latuff made them available as public domain artwork. As such, they could usefully serve as examples of particular types of political cartoonism, where we normally would resort to fair use. See:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Latuff
for examples of Latuff's work. I've proposed an NPOV disclaimer (before Anthere removed the cartoons).
-- Toward Peace, Love & Progress: Erik
DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Erik Moeller wrote:
On 12/5/07, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Some (many) of the images uploaded by Jaakobou are quite shocking. I am sorry, but I fail to see how many of these images are in any sense *educational*
As far as I can tell, the illustrations were not created specifically for Commons. Rather, an illustrator named Carlos Latuff made them available as public domain artwork. As such, they could usefully serve as examples of particular types of political cartoonism, where we normally would resort to fair use. See:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Latuff
for examples of Latuff's work. I've proposed an NPOV disclaimer (before Anthere removed the cartoons).
Yeah. In the spirit of NPOV, I think that when HALF of the images of a (famous) politician on commons are conveying the idea that he is a nazi, then the page is not okay as is.
Now, beyond this, I think commons community should possibly reflect on what is *educational* and what is not.
ant
The idea that only "educational" info should be stored seems to derive from wikipedia.
However, when on wikibooks I write a schoolbook, i also want some illustrations that are just funny, and are not educational in themselves. And when I would write a book on Churchill (something i dont intend to do), it would be nice to have some cartoons on him. Mind you, I dont object against this deletion, but some discussion on the deletion criteria on commons are in order.
teun
2007/12/5, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com:
Erik Moeller wrote:
On 12/5/07, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Some (many) of the images uploaded by Jaakobou are quite shocking. I am sorry, but I fail to see how many of these images are in any sense *educational*
As far as I can tell, the illustrations were not created specifically for Commons. Rather, an illustrator named Carlos Latuff made them available as public domain artwork. As such, they could usefully serve as examples of particular types of political cartoonism, where we normally would resort to fair use. See:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Latuff
for examples of Latuff's work. I've proposed an NPOV disclaimer (before Anthere removed the cartoons).
Yeah. In the spirit of NPOV, I think that when HALF of the images of a (famous) politician on commons are conveying the idea that he is a nazi, then the page is not okay as is.
Now, beyond this, I think commons community should possibly reflect on what is *educational* and what is not.
ant
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I guess it's "educational" in the sense that from these you can learn quite a lot about the moronic agitprop tendencies of the bleeding-heart liberal "We're all Hizbollah now" brigade. I personally learned quite a lot about the artist :)
More seriously, however, Commons need to pull their collective socks up. This is not clever stuff, and I note that the user who added and then edit-warred over these has not been banned yet. If this were enwiki I'd have kicked this guy out ASAP. POV-warriors can't be allowed to run around on the loose on any WMF project.
CM
Odi profanum vulgus et arceo.
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org From: Anthere9@yahoo.com Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 13:32:07 +0100 Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Racism in Commons
Erik Moeller wrote:
On 12/5/07, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Some (many) of the images uploaded by Jaakobou are quite shocking. I am sorry, but I fail to see how many of these images are in any sense *educational*
As far as I can tell, the illustrations were not created specifically for Commons. Rather, an illustrator named Carlos Latuff made them available as public domain artwork. As such, they could usefully serve as examples of particular types of political cartoonism, where we normally would resort to fair use. See:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Latuff
for examples of Latuff's work. I've proposed an NPOV disclaimer (before Anthere removed the cartoons).
Yeah. In the spirit of NPOV, I think that when HALF of the images of a (famous) politician on commons are conveying the idea that he is a nazi, then the page is not okay as is.
Now, beyond this, I think commons community should possibly reflect on what is *educational* and what is not.
ant
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_________________________________________________________________ The next generation of MSN Hotmail has arrived - Windows Live Hotmail http://www.newhotmail.co.uk
On Dec 5, 2007 3:56 PM, Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
More seriously, however, Commons need to pull their collective socks up. This is not clever stuff, and I note that the user who added and then edit-warred over these has not been banned yet. If this were enwiki I'd have kicked this guy out ASAP. POV-warriors can't be allowed to run around on the loose on any WMF project.
You know, there are still projects where we try to resolve things in an other way that hitting the block button...
Why bother? Good old William of Occam would have made a fantastic Wikimedian. You've got a simple, quick, and easy solution to a pretty bad problem. Why hesitate and go in for something more complicated? Don't understand the reason to overcomplicate. Or, alternatively, you could ban him from uploading any more politics-related images...
Honestly, though, if we get to the stage where 50 percent of one guy's picture gallery labels him as a Neo-Nazi - complete fringe theory - Commons need to learn something from enwiki and toughen up. There's a word for that we use at enwiki: POV-pushing. This is not acceptable and we don't really need any more bad press at the moment, not with Durova/!! all over the Register.
CM
Odi profanum vulgus et arceo.
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 16:00:56 +0100 From: bryan.tongminh@gmail.com To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Racism in Commons
On Dec 5, 2007 3:56 PM, Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
More seriously, however, Commons need to pull their collective socks up. This is not clever stuff, and I note that the user who added and then edit-warred over these has not been banned yet. If this were enwiki I'd have kicked this guy out ASAP. POV-warriors can't be allowed to run around on the loose on any WMF project.
You know, there are still projects where we try to resolve things in an other way that hitting the block button...
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_________________________________________________________________ Who's friends with who and co-starred in what? http://www.searchgamesbox.com/celebrityseparation.shtml
On 06/12/2007, Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
[...] There's a word for that we use at enwiki: POV-pushing.
I wish every discussion along these lines didn't turn into a enWP v/s <insert smaller project here> pissing contest, but meh. Had a brief look and [[commons:George W. Bush#Cartoons and Caricatures]] turned up. So which accusation do we prefer, Commons folks - non-NPOV, or double standards? :)
I'm not a Commons member, but am an en:wiki member of the Israel and Judaism projects (to illustrate where I'm coming from on this issue). I think that NPOV should be not be applied to Commons. A media storage space (even one with verification and other processes) shouldn't have a neutral or any other point of view. Its simply storage. If the cartoons are actually used anywhere, then they should adhere to the POV-related and other policies applicable to where they are used.
An issue unrelated to racism, NPOV, etc. is proper categorisation. That is the purview of Commons, and the images probably belong in some more specific category than images of Ariel Sharon.
~Nate
On Dec 5, 2007 11:06 AM, Riana wiki.riana@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/12/2007, Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
[...] There's a word for that we use at enwiki: POV-pushing.
I wish every discussion along these lines didn't turn into a enWP v/s <insert smaller project here> pissing contest, but meh. Had a brief look and [[commons:George W. Bush#Cartoons and Caricatures]] turned up. So which accusation do we prefer, Commons folks - non-NPOV, or double standards? :)
-- Riana
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Riana http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Riana
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I am happy to see that the images were removed from Ariel Sharon's page. Thats one setp. However, I still have a problem with categories like http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Caricatures_of_Ariel_Sharon http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Politics_of_the_Palestinian_terri... and such. There images should be hosted by Wikimedia, except for one or two images - for educational reasons (like I said - the Hebrew Wikipedia has one cartoon example on the artist's page).
Regarding double standard - I have no idea whats going on in other pages. I can imagine that this artist and others have infected other pages too, incl. Bush's page, and even Hitler's page. These pages should be *clean* from racist images that promote nothing Wikimedia stands for.
I would like Wikimedia board members to set a resolution to force Commons to create some sort of NPOV policy and to force them to clean their site - Ariel Sharon's page, Bush's page and even Hitler's page. Futhermore, I think the foundation should publish a basic NPOV policy that will bind all projects.
Hosting such pictures in the name of education is taking the word to a new and unwanted level.
Thanks, Yoni
2007/12/5, Nathan Awrich nawrich@gmail.com:
I'm not a Commons member, but am an en:wiki member of the Israel and Judaism projects (to illustrate where I'm coming from on this issue). I think that NPOV should be not be applied to Commons. A media storage space (even one with verification and other processes) shouldn't have a neutral or any other point of view. Its simply storage. If the cartoons are actually used anywhere, then they should adhere to the POV-related and other policies applicable to where they are used.
An issue unrelated to racism, NPOV, etc. is proper categorisation. That is the purview of Commons, and the images probably belong in some more specific category than images of Ariel Sharon.
~Nate
On Dec 5, 2007 11:06 AM, Riana wiki.riana@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/12/2007, Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk
wrote:
[...] There's a word for that we use at enwiki: POV-pushing.
I wish every discussion along these lines didn't turn into a enWP v/s <insert smaller project here> pissing contest, but meh. Had a brief look
and
[[commons:George W. Bush#Cartoons and Caricatures]] turned up. So which accusation do we prefer, Commons folks - non-NPOV, or double standards?
:)
-- Riana
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Riana http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Riana
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Correct me if I'm wrong - the various Wikimedia projects have different aims, but you can generally describe them as the accumulation of information to community specific standards so that this information can then be displayed to the public. Commons, on the other hand, is a service provided not to the public generally but to Wikimedia projects - therefore, the policies that apply to externally useful articles/reports/books etc. need not necessarily apply to the storage of media at Commons.
I think it would be a mistake for the Foundation board to declare, by fiat, that all Wikimedia projects must adhere to a specific content policy (aside from legal policies such as copyright protection etc).
~Nate
On Dec 5, 2007 12:24 PM, Yoni Weiden yonidebest@gmail.com wrote:
I am happy to see that the images were removed from Ariel Sharon's page. Thats one setp. However, I still have a problem with categories like http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Caricatures_of_Ariel_Sharon http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Politics_of_the_Palestinian_terri... and such. There images should be hosted by Wikimedia, except for one or two images - for educational reasons (like I said - the Hebrew Wikipedia has one cartoon example on the artist's page).
Regarding double standard - I have no idea whats going on in other pages. I can imagine that this artist and others have infected other pages too, incl. Bush's page, and even Hitler's page. These pages should be *clean* from racist images that promote nothing Wikimedia stands for.
I would like Wikimedia board members to set a resolution to force Commons to create some sort of NPOV policy and to force them to clean their site - Ariel Sharon's page, Bush's page and even Hitler's page. Futhermore, I think the foundation should publish a basic NPOV policy that will bind all projects.
Hosting such pictures in the name of education is taking the word to a new and unwanted level.
Thanks, Yoni
2007/12/5, Nathan Awrich nawrich@gmail.com:
I'm not a Commons member, but am an en:wiki member of the Israel and Judaism projects (to illustrate where I'm coming from on this issue). I think that NPOV should be not be applied to Commons. A media storage space (even one with verification and other processes) shouldn't have a neutral or any other point of view. Its simply storage. If the cartoons are actually used anywhere, then they should adhere to the POV-related and other policies applicable to where they are used.
An issue unrelated to racism, NPOV, etc. is proper categorisation. That is the purview of Commons, and the images probably belong in some more specific category than images of Ariel Sharon.
~Nate
On Dec 5, 2007 11:06 AM, Riana wiki.riana@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/12/2007, Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk
wrote:
[...] There's a word for that we use at enwiki: POV-pushing.
I wish every discussion along these lines didn't turn into a enWP v/s <insert smaller project here> pissing contest, but meh. Had a brief look
and
[[commons:George W. Bush#Cartoons and Caricatures]] turned up. So which accusation do we prefer, Commons folks - non-NPOV, or double standards?
:)
-- Riana
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Riana http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Riana
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Yoni Weiden wrote:
Regarding double standard - I have no idea whats going on in other pages. I can imagine that this artist and others have infected other pages too, incl. Bush's page, and even Hitler's page. These pages should be *clean* from racist images that promote nothing Wikimedia stands for.
Like Wikipedia, Commons is not censored. I have an account there - albeit only with a handful of uploads, but I *will* vote oppose on any deletion or policy that seeks to impose political correctness on a media repository. I *hate* censorship and do *not* believe it should be selectively applied to people I disagree with or hold opposing beliefs to.
Brian McNeil
On Dec 5, 2007 6:56 PM, Brian McNeil brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org wrote:
Yoni Weiden wrote:
Regarding double standard - I have no idea whats going on in other pages. I can imagine that this artist and others have infected other pages too, incl. Bush's page, and even Hitler's page. These pages should be *clean* from racist images that promote nothing Wikimedia stands for.
Like Wikipedia, Commons is not censored. I have an account there - albeit only with a handful of uploads, but I *will* vote oppose on any deletion or policy that seeks to impose political correctness on a media repository. I *hate* censorship and do *not* believe it should be selectively applied to people I disagree with or hold opposing beliefs to.
Brian McNeil
I fully agree. We should never delete images on moral grounds or political correctness. Unfortunately we have done so in the past.
Bryan
ive just searched on commons for censored - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Not_censored#Wikimedia_Commons_is_...
"The Commons may contain content that some readers consider *objectionable or offensive*. Like Wikipedia, the Commons is not censored"
and wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_no...
"Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_disclaimer. Anyone reading Wikipedia can edit an article and the changes are displayed instantaneously without any checking to ensure appropriateness, so Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images are tasteful to all users or adhere to specific social http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_norms or religioushttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religionnorms or requirements."
overall - we are NOT censored and this is CLEARLY detailed in policies on various projects - pics should stay
mark
On Dec 5, 2007 6:09 PM, Bryan Tong Minh bryan.tongminh@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 5, 2007 6:56 PM, Brian McNeil brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org wrote:
Yoni Weiden wrote:
Regarding double standard - I have no idea whats going on in other
pages. I
can imagine that this artist and others have infected other pages too, incl. Bush's page, and even Hitler's page. These pages should be *clean* from racist images that promote nothing Wikimedia stands for.
Like Wikipedia, Commons is not censored. I have an account there -
albeit
only with a handful of uploads, but I *will* vote oppose on any deletion
or
policy that seeks to impose political correctness on a media repository.
I
*hate* censorship and do *not* believe it should be selectively applied
to
people I disagree with or hold opposing beliefs to.
Brian McNeil
I fully agree. We should never delete images on moral grounds or political correctness. Unfortunately we have done so in the past.
Bryan
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
What was the disposition in the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy#Images? There is a link to Commons from the Wikipedia article but none of the cartoon images and no discussion.
On 12/5/07, Bryan Tong Minh bryan.tongminh@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 5, 2007 6:56 PM, Brian McNeil brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org wrote:
Yoni Weiden wrote:
Regarding double standard - I have no idea whats going on in other
pages. I
can imagine that this artist and others have infected other pages too, incl. Bush's page, and even Hitler's page. These pages should be *clean* from racist images that promote nothing Wikimedia stands for.
Like Wikipedia, Commons is not censored. I have an account there -
albeit
only with a handful of uploads, but I *will* vote oppose on any deletion
or
policy that seeks to impose political correctness on a media repository.
I
*hate* censorship and do *not* believe it should be selectively applied
to
people I disagree with or hold opposing beliefs to.
Brian McNeil
I fully agree. We should never delete images on moral grounds or political correctness. Unfortunately we have done so in the past.
Bryan
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 05/12/2007, Rob Smith nobs03@gmail.com wrote:
What was the disposition in the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy#Images? There is a link to Commons from the Wikipedia article but none of the cartoon images and no discussion.
The cartoon images are not under a free license thus we can't have them on commons.
Funny, I thought I was talking to the board members. They are the "heads" of the foundation and they should deside. Do they have a different emailing list or are you all board members? Yoni Weiden
2007/12/5, geni geniice@gmail.com:
On 05/12/2007, Rob Smith nobs03@gmail.com wrote:
What was the disposition in the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy<
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy#I...
? There is a link to Commons from the Wikipedia article but none of the cartoon images and no discussion.
The cartoon images are not under a free license thus we can't have them on commons.
-- geni
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Yoni Weiden wrote:
Funny, I thought I was talking to the board members. They are the "heads" of the foundation and they should deside. Do they have a different emailing list or are you all board members?
No, this is a public mailing list for all interested persons.
Even if you were talking to the board, I'm sorry to inform you that the board of trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has no authority over the existence of copyrights that other people own.
-- brion vibber (brion @ wikimedia.org)
Brion Vibber wrote:
Yoni Weiden wrote:
Funny, I thought I was talking to the board members. They are the "heads" of the foundation and they should deside. Do they have a different emailing list or are you all board members?
No, this is a public mailing list for all interested persons.
Even if you were talking to the board, I'm sorry to inform you that the board of trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has no authority over the existence of copyrights that other people own.
-- brion vibber (brion @ wikimedia.org)
<one board member speaking>
And beyond this, I do think we can criticize, vocally so if we really care, but unless the content of a project is 1) either totally failing the general mission or 2) so illegal that it is threatening the whole building we should let it in the hands of the community.
In rare circonstances, the situation was so bad the board made a rather drastic decision. For example entirely deleting the french wikiquote in the past. But it should stay an exception.
</one board member speaking>
<anthere speaking>
Now, frankly, some images should simply not be there. Imho :-)
</anthere speaking>
On 05/12/2007, Brion Vibber brion@wikimedia.org wrote:
Yoni Weiden wrote:
Funny, I thought I was talking to the board members. They are the "heads" of the foundation and they should deside. Do they have a different emailing list or are you all board members?
No, this is a public mailing list for all interested persons.
Even if you were talking to the board, I'm sorry to inform you that the board of trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has no authority over the existence of copyrights that other people own.
Further to Brion's post, the board of trustees has no authority over content unless there is a legal issue. We do not censor content.
On 05/12/2007, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
Further to Brion's post, the board of trustees has no authority over content unless there is a legal issue. We do not censor content.
The foundation could decide otherwise however it is unlikely to do so and particularly unlikely to do so to this extent.
Incidentally for really raciest content start here:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:LA2-NSRW-1-0036.jpg
Beyond parody I feel.
On 05/12/2007, Yoni Weiden yonidebest@gmail.com wrote:
Funny, I thought I was talking to the board members. They are the "heads" of the foundation and they should deside.
They have a lot of other things to do. I doubt this issue is significant enough to warrant a board resolution and anything less could be overturned by the community.
Do they have a different emailing list or are you all board members?
No. Some members of this mailing list are board members some are not. This the list for discussing foundation issues. While I assume there is a board only mailing list I doubt it would be possible for you to post to it.
Yoni Weiden wrote:
Funny, I thought I was talking to the board members. They are the "heads" of the foundation and they should deside. Do they have a different emailing list or are you all board members? Yoni Weiden
No, you are not talking to the board - the board all (or at least mostly) happen to be subscribers to this mailing list - and anyone can subscribe. People on any project are going to take a dim view of you appealing to a higher authority on any issue without first accepting comments from others.
There should be no exceptions on any basis for any particular special interest group - especially when it comes to Commons. Commons must host content that when viewed out of context can be particularly offensive and far, far away from what something like en.wp where an image can be given a context as an example of racism or anti-Semitism.
First they came for the anti-Semitic content, But I did not speak up because I am not anti-Semitic.
Get the picture?
Brian McNeil
First they came for the anti-Semitic content, But I did not speak up because I am not anti-Semitic.
Thank you so much for this. Hit the nail right on the head! -Mike.lifeguard
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Brian McNeil Sent: December 5, 2007 3:06 PM To: 'Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List' Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Racism in Commons
Yoni Weiden wrote:
Funny, I thought I was talking to the board members. They are the "heads" of the foundation and they should deside. Do they have a different emailing list or are you all board members? Yoni Weiden
No, you are not talking to the board - the board all (or at least mostly) happen to be subscribers to this mailing list - and anyone can subscribe. People on any project are going to take a dim view of you appealing to a higher authority on any issue without first accepting comments from others.
There should be no exceptions on any basis for any particular special interest group - especially when it comes to Commons. Commons must host content that when viewed out of context can be particularly offensive and far, far away from what something like en.wp where an image can be given a context as an example of racism or anti-Semitism.
First they came for the anti-Semitic content, But I did not speak up because I am not anti-Semitic.
Get the picture?
Brian McNeil
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Dec 5, 2007 11:39 AM, mike.lifeguard mike.lifeguard@gmail.com wrote:
First they came for the anti-Semitic content, But I did not speak up because I am not anti-Semitic.
Thank you so much for this. Hit the nail right on the head!
Let's not oversimplify this to the point of irrelevance. Nobody has advocated the removal of all or significant parts of anti-semitic content from Commons (or anywhere else). Everyone seems to agree that you need to host some of that content to be able to present informational and educational material on it in the encyclopedias.
That a small particular set of anti-semitic content failed the "informational and educational" test and was removed is not a generalization of any sort.
On 05/12/2007, Brian McNeil brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org wrote:
First they came for the anti-Semitic content, But I did not speak up because I am not anti-Semitic.
Get the picture?
Close but first they came for the lolicon content:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Wikipe-tan_lolic...
And I didn't vote because there are a couple of copyright issues I'm not too sure about.
On Dec 5, 2007 1:09 PM, Bryan Tong Minh bryan.tongminh@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 5, 2007 6:56 PM, Brian McNeil brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org wrote:
Yoni Weiden wrote:
Regarding double standard - I have no idea whats going on in other pages. I can imagine that this artist and others have infected other pages too, incl. Bush's page, and even Hitler's page. These pages should be *clean* from racist images that promote nothing Wikimedia stands for.
Like Wikipedia, Commons is not censored. I have an account there - albeit only with a handful of uploads, but I *will* vote oppose on any deletion or policy that seeks to impose political correctness on a media repository. I *hate* censorship and do *not* believe it should be selectively applied to people I disagree with or hold opposing beliefs to.
Brian McNeil
I fully agree. We should never delete images on moral grounds or political correctness. Unfortunately we have done so in the past.
Bryan
I'm not sure it's necessary to repeat this, but it's an important point.
Commons needs racist images - we need to illustrate [[Racism]], [[Anti-semitism]], [[White supremism]] and a host of other articles on Wikipedia, and presumably comparable usages in related projects. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Races_and_skulls.png <- This incredibly racist image is used to great encyclopaedic effect here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:MaziyarBizhani.jpg This anti-semetic image is invaluable to this encyclopaedic article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Holocaust_Cartoon_Competition
Trying to hold single, contextless images to a NPOV standard would be ruinious to commons and Wikimedia projects as a whole. The manner of displying images on commons may be a seperate issue, I don't know. Usual problems with everything being public, I guess.
WilyD
On Dec 5, 2007 10:12 AM, Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
Why bother? Good old William of Occam would have made a fantastic Wikimedian. You've got a simple, quick, and easy solution to a pretty bad problem. Why hesitate and go in for something more complicated? Don't understand the reason to overcomplicate. Or, alternatively, you could ban him from uploading any more politics-related images...
Honestly, though, if we get to the stage where 50 percent of one guy's picture gallery labels him as a Neo-Nazi - complete fringe theory - Commons need to learn something from enwiki and toughen up. There's a word for that we use at enwiki: POV-pushing. This is not acceptable and we don't really need any more bad press at the moment, not with Durova/!! all over the Register.
En.wikipedia has a lot more problems and disgruntled users than Commons ever has, and I don't believe it is purely due to size or reputation. We're more easy-going at Commons and we try to talk to and help people before clicking the block button and pissing them off - you'd be surprised how many times I've explained one point of policy to someone who would otherwise have been blocked for uploading copyvios or such after repeated warnings, and they realised a point they hadn't understood before and became decent contributors. Policy and copyright are hard to understand and blocking is not the way to educate people.
en.wp does not do things perfectly; and no, they aren't the perfect older sibling for the little ones to look up to. En.wp is more like the rebellious older sibling who became a rock star and wildly famous, but is also slowly killing itself with drugs and alcohol. Just because it makes a lot of money and has a lot of fans doesn't mean the little siblings should mimic its behaviour.
--Ayelie (Editor at Large)
Bryan Tong Minh wrote:
On Dec 5, 2007 3:56 PM, Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
More seriously, however, Commons need to pull their collective socks up. This is not clever stuff, and I note that the user who added and then edit-warred over these has not been banned yet. If this were enwiki I'd have kicked this guy out ASAP. POV-warriors can't be allowed to run around on the loose on any WMF project.
You know, there are still projects where we try to resolve things in an other way that hitting the block button...
Sure, but...
There are also projects where it seems no discussion really occur to try to resolve things.
In this case, one of the user responsible of the mess (not the one uploading the images, but the one putting them on Ariel page) is also one with a pretty impressive list of "you uploaded this image, but it is not taggued".
Check by yourself
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Liftarn
And this has been going on for months http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Liftarn/Archive_4 http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Liftarn/Archive_3 http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Liftarn/Archive_2 http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Liftarn/Archive_1
half of the images he uploaded in the past, it seems, have been deleted. I hope the other images are okay.
On 05/12/2007, Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
I guess it's "educational" in the sense that from these you can learn quite a lot about the >moronic agitprop tendencies of the bleeding-heart liberal "We're all Hizbollah now" brigade. >I personally learned quite a lot about the artist :)
But not I suspect about the uploader.
More seriously, however, Commons need to pull their collective socks up. This is not >clever stuff, and I note that the user who added and then edit-warred over these has not >been banned yet. If this were enwiki I'd have kicked this guy out ASAP. POV-warriors >can't be allowed to run around on the loose on any WMF project.
He's right here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jaakobou
Doesn't appear to be banned from en.
As far as I can tell, the illustrations were not created specifically for Commons. Rather, an illustrator named Carlos Latuff made them available as public domain artwork. As such, they could usefully serve as examples of particular types of political cartoonism, where we normally would resort to fair use.
They're not really political cartoons. Political cartoons are intended to draw attention to a political issue. These are quite clearly intended to shock and offend, while looking like political cartoons.
Euh
Some (many) of the images uploaded by Jaakobou are quite shocking. I am sorry, but I fail to see how many of these images are in any sense *educational*
Example http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:UnitedweRAPE.gif http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Arielsharonsecretlove.gif http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:SharonAnti-Christ.gif
ant
Agreed: These images are pretty shocking, and I have to wonder why, exactly, commons needs to be giving them free hosting? They hardly further our goal of spreading knowledge for free.
I'm also a little shocked to hear that commons doesnt have at least some form of an NPOV policy? Do they have any kind of content-acceptability requirement, or can anybody post any and all offensive images on commons as they see fit?
--Andrew Whitworth
Andrew Whitworth wrote:
Euh
Some (many) of the images uploaded by Jaakobou are quite shocking. I am sorry, but I fail to see how many of these images are in any sense *educational*
Example http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:UnitedweRAPE.gif http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Arielsharonsecretlove.gif http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:SharonAnti-Christ.gif
ant
Agreed: These images are pretty shocking, and I have to wonder why, exactly, commons needs to be giving them free hosting? They hardly further our goal of spreading knowledge for free.
I'm also a little shocked to hear that commons doesnt have at least some form of an NPOV policy? Do they have any kind of content-acceptability requirement, or can anybody post any and all offensive images on commons as they see fit?
--Andrew Whitworth
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I looked for a detailed page on the matter. What I found is this
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope
According to this page, basically anything (if free) could be hosted.
ant
On 06/12/2007, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Andrew Whitworth wrote:
Agreed: These images are pretty shocking, and I have to wonder why, exactly, commons needs to be giving them free hosting? They hardly further our goal of spreading knowledge for free.
I'm also a little shocked to hear that commons doesnt have at least some form of an NPOV policy? Do they have any kind of content-acceptability requirement, or can anybody post any and all offensive images on commons as they see fit?
--Andrew Whitworth
I looked for a detailed page on the matter. What I found is this
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope
According to this page, basically anything (if free) could be hosted.
The key section should be "Wikimedia Commons is a common central media repository of all Wikimedia projects":
"[...] files uploaded to the Commons have to be useful for some Wikimedia project. Media files that are not useful for any Wikimedia project are beyond the scope of Wikimedia Commons."
How could Commons be any more specific than that and still fill its "service" role?
regards Brianna
Brianna Laugher wrote:
On 06/12/2007, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Andrew Whitworth wrote:
Agreed: These images are pretty shocking, and I have to wonder why, exactly, commons needs to be giving them free hosting? They hardly further our goal of spreading knowledge for free.
I'm also a little shocked to hear that commons doesnt have at least some form of an NPOV policy? Do they have any kind of content-acceptability requirement, or can anybody post any and all offensive images on commons as they see fit?
--Andrew Whitworth
I looked for a detailed page on the matter. What I found is this
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope
According to this page, basically anything (if free) could be hosted.
The key section should be "Wikimedia Commons is a common central media repository of all Wikimedia projects":
"[...] files uploaded to the Commons have to be useful for some Wikimedia project. Media files that are not useful for any Wikimedia project are beyond the scope of Wikimedia Commons."
How could Commons be any more specific than that and still fill its "service" role?
regards Brianna
Maybe the solution is to as other projects did, rather than defining what "could be there", listing "what can not be there". Ie, "what wikimedia commons is not"
Ant
The key section should be "Wikimedia Commons is a common central media repository of all Wikimedia projects":
"[...] files uploaded to the Commons have to be useful for some Wikimedia project. Media files that are not useful for any Wikimedia project are beyond the scope of Wikimedia Commons."
How could Commons be any more specific than that and still fill its "service" role?
That kind of statement causes Commons to inherent the combined acceptability guidelines of the other projects. I can't think of any project that would allow such images as these, not even as acceptable demonstrations of how other cartoons could be developed.
Commons has an implicit NPOV policy because all other projects have NPOV policies. That might be something worth putting into writing.
--Andrew Whitworth
Andrew Whitworth wrote:
The key section should be "Wikimedia Commons is a common central media repository of all Wikimedia projects":
"[...] files uploaded to the Commons have to be useful for some Wikimedia project. Media files that are not useful for any Wikimedia project are beyond the scope of Wikimedia Commons."
How could Commons be any more specific than that and still fill its "service" role?
That kind of statement causes Commons to inherent the combined acceptability guidelines of the other projects. I can't think of any project that would allow such images as these, not even as acceptable demonstrations of how other cartoons could be developed.
Commons has an implicit NPOV policy because all other projects have NPOV policies. That might be something worth putting into writing.
While I agree with the removal of the images from the Sharon page, as they generally lead undue weight to the gallery, I'm not sure that adopting a specific NPOV policy on Commons would be a very good idea. As Brianna pointed out, the question of scope pretty much usurps any other policy.
Also, the discussion on the talk page at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ariel_Sharon could certainly use someone with more eloquence explain the situation better. I'm afraid that comments like "These cartoons /are/ racist because they are pointed at a representetive of the jewish people, Ariel Sharon. You can call these picture many things, but they are infact - also - racist." will always be met with resistance, and does not speak to the rather extreme nature of the cartoons..
That comment speaks to Sharon himself and not the horrible nature of the images. Basically, you're a saying that Sharon is immune from any cartoon, because portraying him with any degree of criticism would be considered racism by you--and I must whole-heartedly disagree with this assessment.
2007/12/5, Cary Bass cbass@wikimedia.org:
That comment speaks to Sharon himself and not the horrible nature of the images. Basically, you're a saying that Sharon is immune from any cartoon, because portraying him with any degree of criticism would be considered racism by you--and I must whole-heartedly disagree with this assessment.
You hit the jackpot, tiger! (cit.) That's why I've been a little strange reacting to the request of Yoni. There should be a correct way to discuss everything, not pointing out your finger against something.
Gatto Nero wrote:
2007/12/5, Cary Bass cbass@wikimedia.org:
That comment speaks to Sharon himself and not the horrible nature of the images. Basically, you're a saying that Sharon is immune from any cartoon, because portraying him with any degree of criticism would be considered racism by you--and I must whole-heartedly disagree with this assessment.
You hit the jackpot, tiger! (cit.) That's why I've been a little strange reacting to the request of Yoni. There should be a correct way to discuss everything, not pointing out your finger against something.
Thank you both. This is a position I can agree with on this (was struggling to see an answer during the OMG! Think-of-the press messages). If you want to "inherit" a policy from another project to deal with these images being associated with Ariel Sharon then apply BLP.
Brian McNeil
Oh boy, this pisses me off.
Cartoons insulting Sharon must be removed and we are rolling over ourselves to get them away.
But the Cartoons insulting the prophet Mohammed are allowed on our projects: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Jyllands-Posten-pg3-article-in-Sept-30-20...
Somehow I smell a christian-judeo double-standard/bias here
Waerth
Andrew Whitworth wrote:
The key section should be "Wikimedia Commons is a common central media repository of all Wikimedia projects":
"[...] files uploaded to the Commons have to be useful for some Wikimedia project. Media files that are not useful for any Wikimedia project are beyond the scope of Wikimedia Commons."
How could Commons be any more specific than that and still fill its "service" role?
That kind of statement causes Commons to inherent the combined acceptability guidelines of the other projects. I can't think of any project that would allow such images as these, not even as acceptable demonstrations of how other cartoons could be developed.
Commons has an implicit NPOV policy because all other projects have NPOV policies. That might be something worth putting into writing.
While I agree with the removal of the images from the Sharon page, as they generally lead undue weight to the gallery, I'm not sure that adopting a specific NPOV policy on Commons would be a very good idea. As Brianna pointed out, the question of scope pretty much usurps any other policy.
Also, the discussion on the talk page at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ariel_Sharon could certainly use someone with more eloquence explain the situation better. I'm afraid that comments like "These cartoons /are/ racist because they are pointed at a representetive of the jewish people, Ariel Sharon. You can call these picture many things, but they are infact - also - racist." will always be met with resistance, and does not speak to the rather extreme nature of the cartoons..
That comment speaks to Sharon himself and not the horrible nature of the images. Basically, you're a saying that Sharon is immune from any cartoon, because portraying him with any degree of criticism would be considered racism by you--and I must whole-heartedly disagree with this assessment.
On Dec 5, 2007 2:49 PM, Waerth waerth@asianet.co.th wrote:
Oh boy, this pisses me off.
Cartoons insulting Sharon must be removed and we are rolling over ourselves to get them away.
But the Cartoons insulting the prophet Mohammed are allowed on our projects: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Jyllands-Posten-pg3-article-in-Sept-30-20...
Somehow I smell a christian-judeo double-standard/bias here
I would say that there is a slight difference between the two. The Mohammed cartoons don't show tony blair's exposed genitles, and don't show Mohammed being urinated on, or being sexually assaulted with a nightstick. Politically-sensitive cartoons are one thing, cartoons that are designed for shock-value are different entirely.
--Andrew Whitworth
No it is exactly the same. I am not a Muslim myself. My parents raised me Roman Catholic.
I grew up from my 12th till my 16th in a country called Surinam. In that country there are people from all major religions living together. In my class we had christians, buddhists, hindus, muslims and a jew and even a sikh. Offcourse also some non-religious people. Because of this mixture of children our school tought us the basics of ALL religions, and we got explained the differences and how we could enjoy eachothers company without insulting eachother. This is why I have learned some basics about Islam (I am not an expert).
One of the things I learned was that: It is considered a gross insult to depict the prophet Muhammed!
So by depicting him you are already insulting the Islam. which is just as heavy an insult to a Muslim as showing Blair's testicles is to some Brits. So these matters are exactly the same.
Any cartoon depicting Muhammed are designed for shock-value for a believing Muslim!
Waerth
On Dec 5, 2007 2:49 PM, Waerth waerth@asianet.co.th wrote:
Oh boy, this pisses me off.
Cartoons insulting Sharon must be removed and we are rolling over ourselves to get them away.
But the Cartoons insulting the prophet Mohammed are allowed on our projects: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Jyllands-Posten-pg3-article-in-Sept-30-20...
Somehow I smell a christian-judeo double-standard/bias here
I would say that there is a slight difference between the two. The Mohammed cartoons don't show tony blair's exposed genitles, and don't show Mohammed being urinated on, or being sexually assaulted with a nightstick. Politically-sensitive cartoons are one thing, cartoons that are designed for shock-value are different entirely.
--Andrew Whitworth
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Dec 5, 2007 3:06 PM, Waerth waerth@asianet.co.th wrote:
No it is exactly the same. I am not a Muslim myself. My parents raised me Roman Catholic.
One of the things I learned was that: It is considered a gross insult to depict the prophet Muhammed!
So by depicting him you are already insulting the Islam. which is just as heavy an insult to a Muslim as showing Blair's testicles is to some Brits. So these matters are exactly the same.
Any cartoon depicting Muhammed are designed for shock-value for a believing Muslim!
This may be so, but Ariel Sharon is hardly a religious figure, he's a political one. The fact that he happens to be jewish doesn't mean that an insult to him is an insult to his religion. It's the same as saying that an insult to George Bush isn't an insult to christianity. Religious figures are taken way more seriously then political figures are, and this is an artificial construct. Consider, if the mohammed cartoon depicted an ordinary person and the ariel sharon cartoon depicted an ordinary person, which of the two would be worse? If these were just cartoons of ordinary people, and we had to draw a line in the sand with one of them staying and one going, which would you choose?
The Ariel Sharon cartoon is far worse from the standpoint of general decency. Imagine a cartoon depicting Mohammed in the same position (bound, being urinated on and sexually assaulted), and imagine how much worse that cartoon would be then the one you linked to. There are degrees of indecency, and even though muslims can be touchy about mohammed, the ariel sharon cartoon has a much higher degree of general indecency.
--Andrew Whitworth
*break* I wish to open a deletion request on all of the uploader's pictures, besides one (for educational purposes). I am not an active member of Commons (although I have uploaded many many images to the project). What should I do? Yoni Weiden
2007/12/6, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com:
On Dec 5, 2007 3:06 PM, Waerth waerth@asianet.co.th wrote:
No it is exactly the same. I am not a Muslim myself. My parents raised me Roman Catholic.
One of the things I learned was that: It is considered a gross insult to depict the prophet Muhammed!
So by depicting him you are already insulting the Islam. which is just as heavy an insult to a Muslim as showing Blair's testicles is to some Brits. So these matters are exactly the same.
Any cartoon depicting Muhammed are designed for shock-value for a believing Muslim!
This may be so, but Ariel Sharon is hardly a religious figure, he's a political one. The fact that he happens to be jewish doesn't mean that an insult to him is an insult to his religion. It's the same as saying that an insult to George Bush isn't an insult to christianity. Religious figures are taken way more seriously then political figures are, and this is an artificial construct. Consider, if the mohammed cartoon depicted an ordinary person and the ariel sharon cartoon depicted an ordinary person, which of the two would be worse? If these were just cartoons of ordinary people, and we had to draw a line in the sand with one of them staying and one going, which would you choose?
The Ariel Sharon cartoon is far worse from the standpoint of general decency. Imagine a cartoon depicting Mohammed in the same position (bound, being urinated on and sexually assaulted), and imagine how much worse that cartoon would be then the one you linked to. There are degrees of indecency, and even though muslims can be touchy about mohammed, the ariel sharon cartoon has a much higher degree of general indecency.
--Andrew Whitworth
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Yoni Weiden wrote:
I wish to open a deletion request on all of the uploader's pictures,
besides
one (for educational purposes). I am not an active member of Commons (although I have uploaded many many images to the project). What should I do?
Sorry, but I really think you have to start from a better argument that "I don't like them" or "I think they will offend someone".
Brian McNeil
I haven't givein my reason yet. I asked how. Or should I open a hundred deletion requests? I prefer to open one collective one. Yoni Weiden
2007/12/6, Brian McNeil brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org:
Yoni Weiden wrote:
I wish to open a deletion request on all of the uploader's pictures,
besides
one (for educational purposes). I am not an active member of Commons (although I have uploaded many many images to the project). What should I do?
Sorry, but I really think you have to start from a better argument that "I don't like them" or "I think they will offend someone".
Brian McNeil
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 06/12/2007, Yoni Weiden yonidebest@gmail.com wrote:
I haven't givein my reason yet. I asked how. Or should I open a hundred deletion requests? I prefer to open one collective one. Yoni Weiden
Please see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Mass_deletion_request , which is linked from [[Commons:Deletion guidelines]]. It is a little more intricate than nominating a single image.
Brianna
Opened here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Inappropriate_ca...
2007/12/6, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com:
On 06/12/2007, Yoni Weiden yonidebest@gmail.com wrote:
I haven't givein my reason yet. I asked how. Or should I open a hundred deletion requests? I prefer to open one collective one. Yoni Weiden
Please see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Mass_deletion_request , which is linked from [[Commons:Deletion guidelines]]. It is a little more intricate than nominating a single image.
Brianna
-- They've just been waiting in a mountain for the right moment: http://modernthings.org/
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
hmmm do commons have [[wp:SNOW]]?? cos if im reading correctly i make the votes so far 13 keeps and no other votes.
mark
On Dec 6, 2007 11:24 AM, Yoni Weiden yonidebest@gmail.com wrote:
Opened here:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Inappropriate_ca...
2007/12/6, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com:
On 06/12/2007, Yoni Weiden yonidebest@gmail.com wrote:
I haven't givein my reason yet. I asked how. Or should I open a
hundred
deletion requests? I prefer to open one collective one. Yoni Weiden
Please see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Mass_deletion_request , which is linked from [[Commons:Deletion guidelines]]. It is a little more intricate than nominating a single image.
Brianna
-- They've just been waiting in a mountain for the right moment: http://modernthings.org/
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I think the consensus on this issue is that there is no action required by the Foundation Board and isn't obviously a Foundation inter-community problem either. Perhaps the discussion should be continued, if necessary, on a Commons mailing list (where the interested Commons community members can contribute). They might discuss the issues related to educational value, image reposity limitations, whether largely duplicative but non-identical images should be restricted, etc.
~Nate
On Dec 6, 2007 5:24 PM, Wikinews Markie newsmarkie@googlemail.com wrote:
hmmm do commons have [[wp:SNOW]]?? cos if im reading correctly i make the votes so far 13 keeps and no other votes.
mark
On Dec 6, 2007 11:24 AM, Yoni Weiden yonidebest@gmail.com wrote:
Opened here:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Inappropriate_ca...
2007/12/6, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com:
On 06/12/2007, Yoni Weiden yonidebest@gmail.com wrote:
I haven't givein my reason yet. I asked how. Or should I open a
hundred
deletion requests? I prefer to open one collective one. Yoni Weiden
Please see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Mass_deletion_request , which is linked from [[Commons:Deletion guidelines]]. It is a little more intricate than nominating a single image.
Brianna
-- They've just been waiting in a mountain for the right moment: http://modernthings.org/
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I think it would be a bad idea to close such a controversial issue prematurely.
Bryan
On 06/12/2007, Wikinews Markie newsmarkie@googlemail.com wrote:
hmmm do commons have [[wp:SNOW]]??
No
cos if im reading correctly i make the votes so far 13 keeps and no other votes.
Well should reduce the chance of a relisting.
Waerth wrote:
One of the things I learned was that: It is considered a gross insult to depict the prophet Muhammed!
True enough, and to many non-Muslims the recent teddy-bear naming incident in Sudan was way over the top, and it has taken centuries for Christian countries to get over the point where blasphemy was considered a serious sin. I really don't support political correctness, Muslim or otherwise.
So by depicting him you are already insulting the Islam. which is just as heavy an insult to a Muslim as showing Blair's testicles is to some Brits. So these matters are exactly the same.
I'm sure that there are some people who would say that the only reason why you couldn't show Blair's testicles is that he didn't have any. :-)
Ec
<begin excessive simplification>These silly "depictions of muhammed" things pop up ever so often. For example, CAIR raised a stink over the depiction of Muhammed as a judge in the US Supreme Court Building. The result? Too bad, so sad. Jyllands Postens controversy. Result? Lots of burning and riots, a few people hurt/killed, but it only served to spread the images. Teddy Bear named Muhammed....result? Teacher went back home, and Sudan's public image is again back down to where it was before the Darfur debate quieted down.</end excessive simplification>
My best guess is in about 3 years, we'll have something like Wikiart which will depict muhammed in a painting, some people will get riled up and raise a stink, and we'll be right back where we started. The important question then, is are we displaying images that people find offensive in spite of the fact that the get offended, or are we displaying them because of the fact they get offended? If it is the latter, we have a moral obligation to take them down, and question our own ethics. If it is the former, we have a duty to remain uncensored.
I fear that these cartoons in question (the ones of sharon) fit squarely into the latter.
-dan
On Dec 6, 2007, at 1:17 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Waerth wrote:
One of the things I learned was that: It is considered a gross insult to depict the prophet Muhammed!
True enough, and to many non-Muslims the recent teddy-bear naming incident in Sudan was way over the top, and it has taken centuries for Christian countries to get over the point where blasphemy was considered a serious sin. I really don't support political correctness, Muslim or otherwise.
So by depicting him you are already insulting the Islam. which is just as heavy an insult to a Muslim as showing Blair's testicles is to some Brits. So these matters are exactly the same.
I'm sure that there are some people who would say that the only reason why you couldn't show Blair's testicles is that he didn't have any. :-)
Ec
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Dec 5, 2007 11:49 AM, Waerth waerth@asianet.co.th wrote:
Oh boy, this pisses me off.
Cartoons insulting Sharon must be removed and we are rolling over ourselves to get them away.
But the Cartoons insulting the prophet Mohammed are allowed on our projects:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Jyllands-Posten-pg3-article-in-Sept-30-20...
Somehow I smell a christian-judeo double-standard/bias here
Those are illustrating a very notable, widely publicized public incident.
Hosting random racist anti-Sharon artwork that is not used in any article on any project is not the point of WP Commons.
If there is equivalent artwork that is attacking Moslems (or Hindus, or Buddhists, Jews, Christians, or Pastafarians for all I care) hosted on Commons that is not used on any article on any project, those should come down too. If you know of any please let us know so that it can be dealt with.
That we only found one example in one religious alignment so far doesn't mean that we shouldn't deal with anything in the same category the same way.
I agree with you George. Unfortunately there is a very strong Western Bias on many wikimediaprojects. Because the majority of the people that participate come from the west.
Waerth
Those are illustrating a very notable, widely publicized public incident.
Hosting random racist anti-Sharon artwork that is not used in any article on any project is not the point of WP Commons.
If there is equivalent artwork that is attacking Moslems (or Hindus, or Buddhists, Jews, Christians, or Pastafarians for all I care) hosted on Commons that is not used on any article on any project, those should come down too. If you know of any please let us know so that it can be dealt with.
That we only found one example in one religious alignment so far doesn't mean that we shouldn't deal with anything in the same category the same way.
Florence Devouard wrote:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope
According to this page, basically anything (if free) could be hosted.
Trying to restrict the kind of opinion expressed could be problematic. For example, Wikisource could find it useful and educational to host controversial historic political texts, provided they are old and out-of-copyright, the scanned images of which would then be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. This could include caricatures similar to those of Sharon, but a hundred years older. Wikisource can never be NPOV regarding opinion in the individual text, but must be true to the text as it was printed.
Lars Aronsson wrote:
Trying to restrict the kind of opinion expressed could be problematic. For example, Wikisource could find it useful and educational to host controversial historic political texts, provided they are old and out-of-copyright, the scanned images of which would then be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. This could include caricatures similar to those of Sharon, but a hundred years older. Wikisource can never be NPOV regarding opinion in the individual text, but must be true to the text as it was printed.
Exactly, and this has certainly come up in relation to the hosting by Wikisource of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion".
Ec
On Dec 5, 2007 1:05 PM, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Yoni Weiden wrote:
Dear Wikimedia Foundation people,
The page http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ariel_Sharon in commons includes racist cartoons against a representative of the Jewish nation, and thus, against the Jewish people themselves. I seems like Commons does not have a NPOV policy and thus the pictures will be there until they manage to create one. I do not agree that such pictures be presented in Ariel Sharon's page and I think you should interfere (as commons community clearly don't have the policies to deal with this case) and correct this serious offence before it is released to the press in Israel.
Thanks, Yoni Weiden aka Yonidebest@hewiki _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Euh
Some (many) of the images uploaded by Jaakobou are quite shocking. I am sorry, but I fail to see how many of these images are in any sense *educational*
Example http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:UnitedweRAPE.gif http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Arielsharonsecretlove.gif http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:SharonAnti-Christ.gif
ant
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Images on Commons should not be educational, but usable in some Wikimedia project. As there appear to be multiple articles in multiple languages on Latuff, I fail to see why the images are inappropriate for Commons (except that I find the copyright status dubious). Which does not mean that they belong in the Sharon gallery, btw.
Bryan
On 05/12/2007, Yoni Weiden yonidebest@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Wikimedia Foundation people,
The page http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ariel_Sharon in commons includes racist cartoons against a representative of the Jewish nation,
Strangely no. Moshe Katsav was a representative of Israel at that point Sharon less so. Prime minister and head of state are two different positions.
and thus, against the Jewish people themselves.
Israelis perhaps jews no. I understand there is a difference.
it is released to the press in Israel.
And we care what the Israeli press think because? If a few nasty cartoons cause significant upset I would suggest the problem does not reside with wikimedia.
I think we should just use common sense. In all honesty, I think that we should allow most non threatening materials which would not spark largescale anger - don't forget the commons motto which if I remember is something like "a database of freely usable media files - not a database of educational materials
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org